The BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes (aka Breast Cancer Susceptibility Genes 1 and 2) have been the focus of significant debate over the last several years. 

Many scientists believe that the presence of mutated BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 genes is an indication of your likelihood of developing Breast Cancer.  But is it…or isn’t it?  And can the test results do more harm than good?

The first thing to know is that a BRCA gene test, which is performed on a sample of your blood, does not test for the presence of Breast Cancer.  What it does test for is the presence (or absence) of BRCA gene mutations in your DNA.

The BRCA genes belong to a class of human genes known as ‘Tumor Suppressors’ that, when working properly, produce specific proteins that suppress abnormal cell growth.  ‘Abnormal’ cell growth is at the root of all cancers.

Everyone has two copies of each gene – one copy from mom and one from dad.   Mutation may be present in either, both, or neither of these genes, and the mutation, like the genes themselves, are inherited from your parents.  BRCA gene mutation is rare.  Only about .2 percent (2 tenths of one percent) of Americans carry a BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 mutation.

Proponents of BRCA gene testing believe that finding mutations in these two genes can help determine your likelihood of developing Breast Cancer.  And therein lies the rub.

According to the American Cancer Society, of the approximately 200,000 American women who are diagnosed annually with Breast Cancer, only five to ten percent carry a mutated BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 gene.   What does that mean?  It means that 90 – 95 percent of American women who develop Breast Cancer do NOT possess a mutated BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 gene.  But wait, there’s more.  The research also shows that more than 85 percent of women who do carry a mutated BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 gene never develop Breast Cancer.

Conclusion:  having a mutated BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 gene is not an indication that you will eventually develop Breast Cancer.
Despite that reality, thousands of American women have been tripping over one another to have a test that will tell them whether or not they carry the mutated gene.  

The first downside of that activity is that, as we just pointed out, having the mutated gene has almost nothing to do with developing Breast Cancer.  The second downside of the test is a bit more insidious.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that health insurance companies are not in the health insurance business for their health – they’re in it to make money.  The announcement that a gene had been discovered that appeared to be linked to Breast Cancer was greeted with applause by several insurance companies.  Not because the news heralded the possibility of a cure, but because the announcement gave insurance companies a golden opportunity to minimize their exposure to potential health care expenses.

Picture this:  a corporate Board Room -- a long, polished conference table, at which sat a gaggle of corporate executives, number crunchers and decision makers.  As they contemplate the possible implications of this new piece of health-related news, one of them was heard to say: “If someone has the mutated BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 gene, they have a chance of developing Breast Cancer, so we should exclude coverage to anyone who has that gene”.

Suddenly ‘Number Cruncher’ number two says: “Or, at least, we should make their insurance premiums high enough to cover us in case they do eventually develop Breast Cancer, right?”.  And, of course, ‘Number Cruncher’ number three says: “Right!”

The result:  countless health insurance companies quietly began classifying the presence of a mutated BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 gene as a ‘pre-existing condition’ and used that unspoken designation as license to charge outrageous premiums or to deny coverage all together.  But that’s not all.

Countless companies who routinely examine a prospective employee’s medical history prior to hiring, are now deciding not to hire people who carry the mutated gene.  (and we say ‘countless’ companies because hiring decisions such as this are never made openly.  That company you interviewed with a few months ago may have told you that they chose someone other than you because ‘the company was looking for someone who spoke Portuguese’, but the truth is, the company discovered that you had a mutated BRCA 1 gene.)

And the bottom line is this:

When we weigh all the available evidence; when we consider that 90% of American women with the BRCA gene mutation never develop Breast Cancer, and 85% of American women who develop Breast Cancer do not have the mutation…and when you add to those statistics the ability of insurance companies to use the test results as an excuse to deny health care coverage or hike premiums…and the ability of employers to deny jobs on the basis of test results, we find ourselves leaning toward only one conclusion.

Since the results of a BRCA gene test cannot tell you if you’re truly at risk of developing Breast Cancer; cannot be relied upon to predict your chances of ever developing the disease, and therefore, cannot increase your ability to fend off Breast Cancer, but can result in lifelong health insurance problems and career obstacles, we here at BreastCancerWarrior.net conclude that a BRCA gene test is not for us.

We believe that gene testing for Breast Cancer will make sense only after science has isolated the gene or genes that definitively point to the inevitability of developing Breast Cancer.  Science isn’t there yet, but with continued research, that day will come, and when it does, we will revisit the subject of genetic testing for Breast Cancer.

In the meantime, we urge you to make the decision regarding whether or not to undergo a BRCA gene test only after serious consideration, and in-depth discussions with qualified medical professionals and bona fide genetics counselors.